cancel_all_orders

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('cancel') but does not describe what 'cancel' entails (e.g., immediate vs. queued, irreversible effects), authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and scope without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with potential side effects), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not address critical aspects like what happens after cancellation (e.g., confirmation, error handling), security requirements, or limitations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool fully.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('exchange' and 'symbol') well-documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on exchange support or symbol formats). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('cancel all open orders') and target resource ('for a trading pair on a supported exchange'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'cancel_order' (which likely cancels individual orders) and 'list_orders' (which lists rather than cancels). The verb 'cancel' is precise and the scope 'all open orders' is explicitly defined.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage when needing to cancel all open orders for a specific trading pair and exchange, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cancel_order' or provide exclusions (e.g., no guidance on prerequisites such as authentication or rate limits). The context is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.